From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MAX Query length |
Date: | 1999-07-14 14:16:43 |
Message-ID: | 25451.931961803@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> Trawling through the code last night I noticed that:
> #define MAX_QUERY_SIZE (BLCKSZ * 2)
> Is there any conceivable reason why the query length would be dependent on
> the block size?
Sure: you want to be able to INSERT a tuple of maximum size. In the
absence of dynamically sized text buffers, a reasonable estimate of
the longest INSERT command of interest is going to depend on BLCKSZ.
I don't know how long that particular constant has been defined like
that, though. I had the idea that it was the same as BLCKSZ, not 2x.
You may well find that frontend libpq is using a different value for
its buffer sizes than the backend is :-(
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-07-14 14:22:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO list |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-07-14 14:11:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Interesting behaviour ! |